# C_2019093EN.01007801.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/78

---

Action brought on 25 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-46/19)

(2019/C 93/100)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A-E. Vasilopoulou, as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as that decision imposed on the Hellenic Republic one-off and flat-rate financial corrections, amounting to a gross sum of EUR 25 092 988,84 and a net sum of EUR 24 851 438,56, following the inquiry ΑΑ/2016/013/GR with respect to area-based payments for the claim years 2015/2016 (financial years 2016 and 2017, pages 63-74 of the summary report); and order the defendant to pay the legal costs of the Hellenic Republic. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as that decision imposed on the Hellenic Republic one-off and flat-rate financial corrections, amounting to a gross sum of EUR 25 092 988,84 and a net sum of EUR 24 851 438,56, following the inquiry ΑΑ/2016/013/GR with respect to area-based payments for the claim years 2015/2016 (financial years 2016 and 2017, pages 63-74 of the summary report); and order the defendant to pay the legal costs of the Hellenic Republic.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

| 1. | The first plea in law is based on an infringement by the Commission of Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation No 1307/2013, (1) with respect to the interpretation and application of the term ‘permanent grassland’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is based on an infringement by the Commission of Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation No 1307/2013, (1) with respect to the interpretation and application of the term ‘permanent grassland’.

| 2. | The second plea in law is based on defective reasoning with respect to an infringement of Article 296 TFEU, infringement of Article 18(5) of Regulation No 640/2014, (2) of the LPIS quality assurance guidelines (Executable Test Suite (ETS) LPIS data quality measures, version 6.0), and of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is based on defective reasoning with respect to an infringement of Article 296 TFEU, infringement of Article 18(5) of Regulation No 640/2014, (2) of the LPIS quality assurance guidelines (Executable Test Suite (ETS) LPIS data quality measures, version 6.0), and of the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | The third plea in law is based on a defective statement of reasons by the defendant as to the imposition of one-off corrections in addition to the flat-rate correction. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The third plea in law is based on a defective statement of reasons by the defendant as to the imposition of one-off corrections in addition to the flat-rate correction.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014, L 181, p. 48).

---